TBF anon rarely does

Alright, while your crude behavior doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence about your receptivity for reason and evidence, let’s take a look how Biden actually defines “price gouging”:

“Any corporation that has not brought their prices back down, even as inflation has come down, even as the supply chains have been rebuilt, it’s time to stop the price gouging”

This is either another one of his classic faux pas, or it’s used as a propaganda term here, because on closer examination, this sentence reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between prices and inflation. Stay with me here, and I’ll explain why, but I’m afraid it’s going to require just a little of high school math.

Inflation is defined as the rate that prices rise, i.e. higher inflation = prices rise faster, lower inflation = prices rise slower. Read that last part again, because that means specifically that lower inflation does not mean prices go down. It means they go up more slowly. In order for prices to actually go down, inflation would have to be negative, which it currently isn’t. Hence, Biden is either making a mathematical error here, or he is deliberately misleading people about the nature of the relationship between prices and inflation.

There you go, I hope that was clear enough. Now feel free to continue your verbal abuse, but I think it’s amply clear who’s the buffoon here.

Making gas more expensive to produce will drive up the price you pay at the pump. It’s not that difficult to understand, is it?

I’ve already been banned from an entire server simply because my username apparently contains a secret message of bigotry and hatred, so I hope you’ll excuse if I’m gonna try to keep it civil and friendly and try not to rustle too many jimmies during my time here.

That’s okay, I can live with that.

I do, but if I said it outright I would just be accused of a lack of empathy and intelligence, plus a whole lot of other things far worse than that, so I won’t.

So if you didn’t get my broad hint, I’m not going to be upset, and if you do, like I said, perhaps take my advice to stew and simmer over it before posting a response in affect.

Ah yes, if only one of those country club going billionaires would decide to use their power to try and come help us…

Yeah, I think I’m just gonna let you stew and simmer on that one.

No one with any power, no one from the right families is coming to help their capital livestock.

That’s an interesting sentence right there. What does that even mean, the “right” families? Are you seriously expecting the people who created the problem to now help solve it?

This exploitation machine is exactly what they wanted and spent decades lining pockets to achieve.

No, of course you aren’t. But by God, let’s also not ask for help from the “wrong” families…

Shutting down the Keystone XL pipeline and restricting domestic oil leases almost immediately increased the price of gas by 20 or so cents.

I thought the President doesn’t control the price of goods…

Oh no, someone criticized our glorious leader!

I don’t wear any watch at all. Time isn’t real, it was invented by capitalists to sell more watches.

MFW using a log to smash a window is called “breaking and entering” instead of “logging in”.

Same. I even played some of them. Still never gave them a red cent because their launcher is an offense to all mankind.

More recently though, he has spent his time complaining about the rise of antisemitism when he himself has done a fair amount of work contributing to it while in the character of Borat.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/sacha-baron-cohen-tells-tiktok-its-creating-biggest-antisemitic-movement-since-nazis/

Yes, I know, but what do you expect me to say when you don’t respond to any of my other arguments?

Straight from the manifesto, page 12:

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

Accuse me of picking and choosing the most salient passage, but I would say this doesn’t leave too much room for interpretation about what the word “forcible” means. And no, you don’t get to talk your way out by saying ‘overthrowing the status quo via legislation enforced by police would be considered “by force”, regardless of whether the police use violence.’ Isn’t ACAB a quintessentially leftist term? Or does it not apply when the police work for you instead of against you?

Also, just to give a counterexample to your “evil autocrat” problem: Gandhi managed to get rid of British colonial rule without ever advocating for or using violence. So no, the idea that violent oppression justifies a violent response is flawed. Violence always begets more violence, there is literally no exception. You can’t murder your way to a fair and just society, it always ends in oppression.

Okay, honestly, would you eat a Bill Gates or Elon Musk? They don’t look particularly tasty to me. Bezos maybe, he seems to be in good shape (although likely chock full of steroids), but the vast majority of them are frumpy old dudes or dudettes who probably taste like leather. I don’t think that eating them would be particularly enjoyable.

This isn’t about whether or not billionaires are essential, but whether getting rid of them would substantially change anything.

Assume, for instance, that we make owning (or earning) more than a billion dollars (per year) illegal by putting a 100% tax on every dollar afterwards. Then billionaires would simply move most of their assets abroad or find some other loophole that lets them avoid this, like setting up a bunch of smaller companies that each have $999 million. Unless the whole world follows suit, it won’t change anything, and that’s not going to happen because any country that’s willing to give them a safe haven would make a killing by doing so.

Also, if this DID happen, what makes you think they’d continue to work trying to make more money and not just spend more time playing golf instead? Whatever revenue you’d expect in taxes would simply not occur because once there’s no more incentive to earn more, there’s no more incentive to produce. Ironically, it would probably lead to far more quasi-billionaires because other multi-millionaires would likely pick up the slack where the big guys throw the towel, but I don’t see how regular people would benefit.

But perhaps you can explain what you have in mind?

The big issue with “trying” communism is that it historically has only really occurred through violent revolution. The political instability in these situations gives a perfect opportunity for the seizing of power by exactly those kinds of people.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that violent revolution is exactly what Marx said was essential in order to bring about the communist utopia he envisioned. That’s precisely why communism has such a bad rep among anyone but edgy teenagers and college students. Are you telling me Marx was wrong about this? If so, please elaborate.